tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 20, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EDT
john hilsenrath. "washington journal" is next, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning. the president had -- heads to florida to meet with college students and workers and to participate in advance -- in even. he took to local television to talk about coverage and what is going on in the missing malaysia airline. -- latest this morning australian authorities are searching for floating objects in a remote part of the indian ocean. that took place in the early part of this morning. we will read a story about that in just a bit.
stories taking a look at the coverage of the event. we want to get your thoughts on the media coverage of the malaysia flight 370. for those of you who live in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 585-3880. for mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 585-3881. have beene op ed critical of coverage and some have been supportive. if you want to send us a tweet, it is @cspanwj. you can also reach us at email@example.com. a little bit from the associated press this morning. search planes were dispatched on thursday to determine whether to large objects bobbing in a remote part of the ocean was part of a possible debris field of the
missing malaysian airlines flight. spotted had aects dimension of almost 80 feet. the other one was smaller. there could be other objects in the water nearby the area. -- that is from john young, manager of the australian maritime safety authority's division. a couple of things to share with you this morning. rachel brody talking about the coverage and her piece. flight 370's disappearance over covered. it has brought more traffic to its site than any story since the japanese soon on the. cnn has been criticized for devoting hours to the missing claim. courtney love believes she found the missing plane in satellite images. the network has seen a huge
ratings bump. ages 25 to between 54. for our first 45 minutes, your thoughts on the coverage. see if you have learned something from a, if you think it is too much. again, if you want to reach out to us, (202) 585-3880 four eastern and central time zones. for those of you and the mountain and pacific time zones. it participation by twitter -- i think coverage is overboard, especially when the media speculates on everything that may have happened. you can share your thoughts on the lines or on social media. this is danny, west virginia. i agree. i think it has been ridiculous. they have had no news, no facts, no information. they keep reporting constantly. it is ridiculous.
bey are ignoring things like transpacific partnership that are going to completely undermine all of the levels of is in the country and effectively a corporate takeover in the united states. host: have you watched any of the coverage? my job requires me to be monitoring two channels of television news and two screens of computer all the time. yes. i am watching it. there's nothing there. it is just lips moving and no information. host: you have not learned anything from the coverage? caller: only that they have no fax. they spot something in the water and they sent some boats out than when the boats get there. there, the boats get there's nothing there. host: good morning. caller: i agree with the last
color. we have a lot going on in the world. we are not getting the coverage that we should be getting like over in the ukraine. and all the things that are happening in this country -- they are ignoring it. i am ill, so i have been watching it. it is constant. they started -- i was watching is when theyight picked this up and they have gone all through the morning. it, but it is the same thing over and over again. i guess i am hypnotized by it. i do not know. host: how much of the coverage have you watched on tv? caller: all love it. it is the same thing. i feel sorry for the people and i keep thinking that they're going to -- that there will be a
resolution. one way or another -- i was hoping they would find the plane on land. that got my attention. i discounted that. i do not think that is possible. in real deepobably water. i believe it is the indian ocean. i don't know. the last one that was like this, it took two years for them to find it. poor people that and lost their loved ones it breaks your heart. bill, suffolk, virginia. i wanted to say, i believe that those people are all gone now. it has been so many days passed by. that size, you cannot
find it nowhere at all? the only credible evidence that -- at aboutfound five past 12:00 our time. it is strange that we cannot find something that thebig. host: have you been following a lot on tv? caller: i have. i feel sorry for the people in malaysia. it is sad. i hope and pray it don't cause no big problems. host: what keeps you tuned into the coverage? caller: i love to look at c-span anyway. -- lanes areuation crashing -- planes are crashing all over the earth and they find them. this is 239 people and there are some children on it. it is so sad.
i am not going to blame no type of culture, it is so sad. host: some thoughts on media coverage of malaysia airlines flight 370. we are getting your thoughts as well. call, want to give us a (202) 585-3880 i. in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 585-3881. you can tweet us as well. we read a piece taking a critical look at the coverage. says someorker" being does seem to have reprogrammed the plane navigation. make what we know
about the knowledge of the plane fit into our models. we are startled to learn that aviation experts cannot make sense of it from there and either. it is easy to get the feeling that they are asking for our theories and assistants. the piece is called "in defense of endless flight 370 coverage." daniel, shelby, north carolina. caller: good morning. they give for taking my call. opinion, listening to you this morning and jumping onto other news channels on the radio, everyone probably talked about it in the span of about five minutes. morning, it has been
over covered. it is probably because it is so topelling for people consider being on an airplane and it just disappear. if it had crashed, it would have been a day or two for it to get off the new cycle. because there is no resolution horrible, i don't know if it is any more horrible than the numerous amounts of planes that crashed throughout the year. because there has been no resolution is why we keep seeing it. host: have you learned anything from the coverage? , i would notnow say that i have learned anything from the coverage. i do not know that there is as far as --earn
the thing i have learned the most is that i was surprised by the response of the malaysian government to have covered up -- as long as they did. that -- thesed united states government. as far as learning something, i would say that you learn more worksthe way modern media as opposed to learning how we respond. too much coverage, we need to focus on real issues in america. twitter, available. phone lines available, and facebook as well. dennis, you're up next. i have been watching.
i cannot help but watch. they are doing it because it is getting good ratings. it is really frustrating when there are so many other things going on in the world and this takes so much time. i can understand giving a little bit time at each news -- at the beginning of each newscast to talk about things that are new. it is just a rehash of everything. it would be a lot better news -- news is supposed to be facts, not speculation in that kind of
thing. speculation is a big driver of the ratings. i think we are getting too much of it. there are a lot full lot -- there are an awful lot of other things going on in the news and we are watching all discovered from the airplane. putin is over there, it is important that the world knows what is happening over there and in other places that we have problems. but we areverage, getting what we are tuning into. nato's role in what is going on in the ukraine will be at the top of the segment. and off lead story from "the
washington post" looks at the accelerator problem for toyota. congress and the public have been lied to about the sudden acceleration of the vehicle. it caused the world's largest automaker to be hit with a fine the justice department. says it misled americans by making deceptive statements about the safety problems that caused its vehicles to speed up uncontrollably. safety regulators and federal say gm has taken more than a decade to issue a switchfor an egg ocean problem that has linked to 31
accident and 12 deaths. barra talking about issues going on with her company. she writes gm will learn from our cobalt failure. gmryone mgm -- everyone at regrets that it took so long to issue a recall. we are deeply sorry for the lives lost and the lives affected. this goes back 10 years to vehicles that we no longer make, but i am responsible for resolving it. we are taking extraordinary steps. she lays out some of the steps in the op-ed. susan, boston, massachusetts. caller: i think the coverage has been overwhelming.
the one thing about all of the coverage that i found so shocking was the revelation of in one passport control. i was naïve. i wasn't aware that there was such a heavy use of fraudulent and stolen passports. -- myher thing is the father would be rolling over in his grave that we are not availing ourselves of the latest and greatest technologies to keep passengers safe. tohave to start advocating get streaming videos and those.ng
educational in many ways. thank you for having me attorney -- the attorney, having her your program is great. to watch thatant program that susan referenced, that took place on the show. go to our c-span website. if you go to c-span.org, we have the video library. will give you all of the video that is related to it in our archives. lisa, washington, d.c. caller: thank you. i have not called in a couple of years. my 90.1 radio every day.
much to add in terms of what a lot of people said. i know the pressure for networks is great. to jump him what the previous caller said, clearly because , becauseno new news this is unusual, it could get interesting when they start talking about how unusual it is -- and how there is no existence or anything like that. out, when that stand i listen to the rebroadcast when , itstart the shows at 12:00
was incredible to me that less after it had happened, or maybe he was 24 hours because march 8 -- what was that, a friday? within 24 hours, the pressure they felt to say what had happened, i could not believe it had already caused david gregory to say when we start off the extend want to condolences to all of the families who lost loved ones in the crash. -- my mouth could not close. i could not believe he had already said the word crash because it was so -- it was not determined from anybody that the plane had crashed yet. think they did not retract or anything. nobody probably even remembers
that that was said. lisa, washington, d.c. she mentions the sunday shows in air without commercials on the radio on sunday. you can listen to it as you do other things. the new york times takes a look at a recent federal ruling when it comes to voter rolls. -- rules. the federal judge in kansas ordered election authorities to help require proof of registeringof voters in a decision that could set a trend for other republican dominated states. the states sued the agency to force the action after it had turned them down. the supreme court ruled last
june that congress holds full power over federal election rolls but indicated that states can require proof of citizenship in state and local elections. ruling, the judge characterized the decision by the election commission to deny ' requests as unlawful and in excess of statutory authority. he said congress had not preempted state laws requiring proof of citizenship through the national voter registration act. good morning. i am 75 years old. i am an ex military veteran. me how this one story has taken up the whole news space from local to national news when we have other things going on. just like the immigration thing.
all of the other local things that happen every day, the crashes, the dope deals, all of this that is an everyday deal. it is all taken over by big money, whirring about who is going to be the first one to say, -- worrying about who is going to be the first one to say ok, we found the wreckage, we knew it was hijacking and all of this. i thought from day one it was a hijacking. why, who where and cares until it is over and done with? thank you for giving me some time. have a great day. caller and itime watch your show consistently. host: thank you for participating this morning. you can participate off of twitter as well. mhe every issue of our day, sensationalized and every aviation expert from paper airplanes to 747 pilots want airtime.
jack james says dangerous, damaging, delusional, and horrible for the families of the missing. roberts, washington, d.c. caller: good morning. the news media has become an entertainment source, not so much information worthy. there is more information that needs to be broadcast. the media is focusing on this and ignoring everything else. obama is taking away our civil right and our second amendment rights and he has the power to detain any american for any reason for any amount of time, but no one cares about that because they want to focus on an airplane.
with airport security so tight now, rather than try to hijack airport, from mthe you can steal the plane and hide it. there will be people more than willing to hide an aircraft. you fill it full of explosives and you fly it into the capital and d.c. and mark it up as another plane. the media is so focused on entertaining everyone then broadcasting news that they can affect us as americans. tot is what keeps us glued the television. that is my opinion. host: that is robert from here and washington, d.c. the president heads to florida to participate in events. one of the questions asked of him in an interview was about the flight. [video clip] >> we put every resource we have search process.
fbi, anybody, but who typically deals with anything related to our aviation system is available. thoughts and prayers are with the families, but i want them to be a sure that we consider this a top priority and we will keep working with the international community to see if we can get to the bottom of this. missouri, thank you for holding on. we're talking about media coverage of the malaysian airlines flight 370. caller: as far as the media coverage of this airplane going, like the lady from massachusetts
, it shows what we are lacking. i learned about the passports. we doo pertains to how not have -- there was another airplane that went down. was supposed to have airline put on their where they could keep track of it for .ore than 30 days indianlearned about the ocean and how shallow it was and how deep it was. it was a learning process to me. on no tv or no subject matter for 24 hours.
i don't look at the same old same old. whatk at anybody and see their experts or people in the field are telling you and what you can learn. , going ont remember airplanes, you need to know. if it was your relative missing, you would want to have it forefront. serious concern with state unemployment insurance deal. a group of 10 senators are working to approve a five-month extension of the federal benefits plan for the jobless that would back a benefits to late december when the program first expired. if enacted by congress, the
benefits will continue through the end of may. as part of the agreement, the proposed legislation or wire more job training for long-term jobless workers in order to continue receiving insurance benefits. the deal would eliminate state or federal unemployment benefits for laid-off workers whose gross income in clue did -- whose gross income for the previous year top $1 million. boehner has signaled no eagerness to take up the issue and a letter written by an association representing state official who distribute it unemployment benefits. the story goes on from there. that was in "the washington post." if you are just joining us, you are invited to give your thoughts on the media coverage of the malaysia airlines flight 370. some new developments in the early morning hours.
your thoughts on the coverage of malaysia flight 370. keith, waterbury, connecticut. different append and -- opinions. it seems like the american media is doing what they're supposed to be doing. my main problem is with the malaysian government. they're giving contradictory statements. it is like a red herring. i wish the united states government would focus on areas that need to be watched. a lot of things have been going on in this world. maybe the plane is there.
illinois, good morning. to your question about , i think it is more cynical. i think it landed somewhere. i think the nsa and smartphones plane, we should have more information about where exactly and what happened to the plane by the smart phones are on that plane. senator rand paul of kentucky speaking to an audience in berkeley, california. here's a picture of the event that took place yesterday. about privacy issues and things to the group there. he got a standing ovation for his speech.
another picture that has a senator talking. it shows a little bit of where he is talking from the podium. the story says the junior senator from kentucky and likely contender for the 2016 republican presidential nomination was following in his by drawingotsteps crowds of enthusiastic young followers. his policies criticize government surveillance programs. that is from the mercury news this morning. patricia, texas. i am from belton, texas. the president has stated that he militaryvailable excess out there searching for this pieces of this airplane.
my thoughts go out to the families and the military. thank god for them. what if it is a ploy? host: what do you mean a ploy? caller: to get our military in these positions and then someone wherever,yonder or you know, attack us while we are looking at this. we have the president worrying about obamacare at the white house. speak out much. i hardly watch any news. this kept me up all my long. i am stressed over this. i am so confused. it does not make sense. sense to wheree the debris is and i heard someone say this morning that there is a line of debris all
the way to new jersey. days of debris4 floating, we are just now finding this stuff? where the hell has the world gone to? host: anderson, brooklyn, new york. to bill, stony creek, virginia. caller: good morning. i think the news is being covered great. they're doing a great job of covering it. it has a twofold effect. the effect is alien related. the whole plane could have been abducted. we know there are beings from outer space. there are cover ups all along.
this could be one of them. we will never know. host: you can offer your thoughts. on the lines, (202) 585-3880. (202) 585-3881 for those of you and the mountain and pacific time zones. staff general michael moseley in an interview with the daily caller. at theessed frustration news medias sensationalizing the missing malaysia flight 370. a lot of people on tv are journalist majors or something that offered no understanding of this, but they are looking to sensationalize or emotional lies the event.
fuzzing it up and getting everybody all excited may be great for ratings, but may not be useful. the coverage taught me one thing. it is a limitation of our technology. a lot of experts were coming and guessing. --t i was thinking about even if we are doing much better, monitoring of these things is now become -- it is not even internationalize. one region does not talk to another. shows how we are controlling our space. maybe it is a lesson for everybody. what the media did not cover is what was the local media in
malaysia. i didn't hear anything. cnn and bbc were covering their in perspectives, but no one malaysia is talking about what is going on, why did they do this or did not do this. it is open for me. the media is overdoing it, but it is better to overdo it then doing it less. under this situation, we are not yet full of the story behind these things. for the family, it is very important. host: the paper this morning talks about pull off in ukraine of military troops. the president, who has threatened moscow with additional sanctions says nobody wants to trigger an actual war with russia. that would serve no one's interest.
get into agoing to military excursion in ukraine. what we are going to do is mobilize our diplomatic resources to make sure that we have a strong international coalition that ends a clear message. no signss shown that of flinching in the dispute and expects the legal process required to make romeo part of russia to be completed this week , according to the foreign minister. we are going to take a look at nato's role and what is going on in ukraine and we will have someone associated with nato, who has worked closely with it and talk about and get that perspective as well. that is coming up in about 10 minutes. or the remainder of our time, it media coverage of malaysian flight 370. idaho, hello. caller: i have not seen any coverage about advanced military systems that could have the capability of knocking out a
ofnsponder, masking the view where the plane is, considering the area that this plane was in. with the tensions between china and japan and the ties with china and russia, is it may be test of that it was a another foreign government? host: virginia beach, virginia, sandy. you are on. there is anink overabundance of media coverage on this. they were four or five days late in telling us certain things. let's compare this to the cloak n over thealle white house and the first lady's trip to china. doesn't that appear to be very interesting?
we're supposed to have open news. are the things in the white house not open to pressure coverage -- press coverage? host: there have been other news on cnn lately. for the most part, there is one story. the network has packed hours after hours with news and talk about the missing flight. the disparity in hours of coverage might be driven by each network's strategic identity as by the news itself. the mystery plays to most cnn ran as the go to source for big international stories. here is the sack, louisiana --
here is zach, louisiana. go ahead. was -- i think the plane host: you'll have to keep talking and not listen to the television. caller: the plane has been abducted by those two guys that .ame on and the two pilots those are the only two guys that could fly the plane. he guy that came on it said was running from the government and stuff. they could have been some kind of sleeper cell. new york, look at what happened at the world trade center. they did with they did.
no one ever thought anything about that. a poll that you can participate in, asking about over coverage of flight 370. it does not show how many people are dissipated, but it shows the breakdown. 54%.just over little those saying no, about 45%. mike, alabama. i am not too experienced in airplanes and how they do when any do, but airplane leaves one airport, tracked fromirplane the place it leaves to the place that is going? if that is the case, they should know where the plane went down. thank you for having me on. new federal website
provides information on changes in climate. make thef an effort to public see gloaming -- global warming as an immediate problem, the white house put up a website aimed at turning scientific data about projected droughts and wildfires and the rise in sea levels into eye-catching digital presentations that can be mapped using simple software apps. it will serve as a clearinghouse for science data from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the united states geological survey, the defense department, and nasa. the first bunch of data will focus on the coastal flooding and the rise in sea levels. most users will not be able to do much on their own yet. nasa and noaa will call on researchers and provide -- and private companies to create software simulations illustrating the impact of rising sea levels.
trish, henry, virginia. i was watching the news this morning and it was to understanding that they had found some debris along the australian coastline, or they are looking into that as far as i could tell. covering about the cloud causing them not to be able to see that well. i do not think it is a ploy on any country by any means. i do not think the lane landed -- the plane landed. i think it went down. i think it is ridiculous they spent 30 minutes at the beginning of every show to talk about the same thing. we do not need that many experts e theories.th host: how much attention have you paid to the coverage of the missing flight? much -- until i got
sick of hearing the same things from different people. i have watched it every day. is off of twitter. she says, amazing how they can continue to have breaking news and still do not know anything. we will hear from william, dover, pennsylvania. last call. good morning. caller: good morning. my opinion on the whole malaysia flight thing, we do need the news coverage to cover that. it is part of life and the world. the news media keeps repeating itself, like the last caller said. there is no reason. we could use media coverage for better coverage of things we need to cover. why dotion would be -- we seem to be hearing all of the news coverage from everyone, but the country itself or the plane originated from? you do not hear malaysia talking
or getting on the internet or on national television, talking about what they are doing or what their steps are in seeking out where this plane went and what happened to it. your hearing people say a ufo took it out. if that is the case, to say that there is not other people on other planets, that can maybe be -- it is hypothetical that be somethingcould minor as turbulence took the haven'twn and they just found it. it could have blowed up into a million pieces in midair and disintegrated into dust like the space shuttle did. they will never find it. there are some the things out there that could have happened to this plane, however, it is great that the news media is there to cover it. they just go overboard with it
and we have other things going , to doe in this country with russia right now. i think malaysia needs to do a little bit more feedback on -- even if there isn't new information there. newspapers talking about issues about pullback in crimea. here is "the washington post." that is the topic of our next segment with mark jacobson. he is going to talk about nato's role in dealing with russia and ukraine. we will have that discussion coming up. knox.l hear from olivier he will talk about diplomatic efforts with other foreign leaders in a thing called telephone diplomacy. we will talk about what that is later on in the program.
has been arogram marvelous program for america to s knowledge and horizons. it will continue to be so in the future. as long as man has the thirst for knowledge, we will continue to press outward. risk. process, there is that risk is taken by each one of us every day and that risk is understood by all of the members of a crew that climb into a loaded spaceship. remarks would be as we reflect upon this tragedy, a tragedy that this whole nation grieves in, let's remember the remarks by someone who knew
something about risk, a gallant lady named helen keller. when she spoke of risk and security -- this is what she said. security is mostly a superstition. not exist in nature nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. saferng the danger is no in the long run than outright exposure. with. to what she ends life is either a daring adventure or nothing. and be with and keep in the palm of his hand our departed brothers and sisters, daring adventurers, and god
bless and comfort their families and friends. >> find more coverage on our facebook page. >> "washington journal" continues. a senior representative from 2009 to 2011, he is also a senior transatlantic fellow to the german --. he is mark jacobson. aboutu paint a picture nato's role about what will go on in ukraine? understandhave to where nato came from. this is a cold war alliance.
in a lot of ways, we are back to the future. there is a lot of talk about what it might mean to have a resurgent russia in a modern nato. general --e from secretary-general rasmussen, what he has addressed is the political role of nato. this is a political military alliance. it is not about the weapons in the military. it is about the political legitimacy of action taken in the international arena. it is ameans -- collective ideal. values that are held by the allianced nations. stands for freedom for independence, for self-determination. has done in crimea flies in the face of all that. there have been some discussions
relationt is ukraine's with nato. back in the early 1990's, nato and russiallective was part of the partnership for peace. nations was for former to work with the alliance in collectiveaining security. there is no alliance obligation to defend a partnership for peace nation. the idea is to build confidence and to some degree a strategic level of interoperability. the ukraine remains a membership of our ship for peace. -- member of partnership for peace.
article five is the cornerstone of that that says an attack against one is an attack against all. host: what are the possible roles for nato now? caller: this is will --guest: this is what the alliance will discuss over the next several months. you have the meeting of the nato foreign ministers. john kerry, his counterparts, europe, canada, they will get to together and discuss with the nato alliance may do in terms of support for ukraine. we will see more institutional support. by that, i mean working with the ministry of defense, working to ensure -- i do not mean boots on the ground training ukrainian forces, but establishing stronger relationships to assist the competence of their military to take action
of their nation. in is vice president biden europe right now? why is it important for marty dempsey to make statements about -- we're going to be discussing on a daily basis with our ukrainian colleagues what they need? it is the psychological and moral support that is critical as a first step. you should not consider doing anything else without that. trainings and supplies part of the support nato could offer -- offer? guest: certainly. forces intonian training exercises, bilateral or multilateral military exercises. nato conducts many ground exercises in europe to claim -- to train up nato forces and enable them to work better together.
ukrainians can play role in this. host: mark jacobson is our guest until 8:30. if you want to ask him questions, here's your chance to do so. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. thatan send tweets @cspanwj and e-mail ads firstname.lastname@example.org. what does that mean -- are there nato troops, nato headquarters? scope out what exists. for many americans, a lot of them happen realized nato still existed until the summit. it is a military collective threatd to face down the of the soviet union in the cold war. the basic tenant, collective
security. against one member of the alliance would be considered an attack against all. the idea was that this would have a deterrent effect on an emerging soviet union that seemed more powerful than the devastatedhad been by the second world war. over the years, this has turned into an organization that was interoperable militarily. during the cold war, the u.s. shouldered most of the burden. main military strength was in the u.s. strategic nuclear deterrent. war, the end of the cold the issue was, what should nato do? orterms of taxpayer value holistically its success, this alliance worked. it did turn the soviet union during the cold war. how can the alliance shift and manage the threat than north
america and europe, the euro atlantic partnership faced, after the end of the cold war? we had an intervention in bosnia in 1996. the air war in kosovo in 19 99. operations in afghanistan beginning with nato in 2003, continuing to this day. operations in libya. dealing with the threats on the periphery, the natures of the thread changes, but the basic alliance remains. shift?oes the alliance one of the challenges is that not all alliance members believe in the same prioritization of threats. russia looks much more threatening here in washington then perhaps it does from the baltics, from hungry, from poland. at the same time, the alliance has to agree on a set of priorities.
those will be intense discussions leading up to the nato summit this september in wales. host: this is dan, minnesota. you are on with mark jacobson. is -- do youestion think this new cold war with ofsia will do the trick boosting the endless war industry now that the war of terror has been deflated by more people realizing that building seven was brought down and controlled demolition on 9/11? let's steer way from the rhetoric that says we're going to go back to a cold war. i grew up during the cold war. many of those out there grew up during the cold war. it was not a pleasant time with 11,000 tj nuclear weapons pointed at this -- 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons
pointed at this country. i would avoid that. there are lessons to be drawn from the cold war. certainly lessons in dealing with the russians. at the same time, i do not think ,e are dealing with a bipolar global conflict. politicaling to be a and economic struggle over the short term. it will not be an all-encompassing economic political military is a logical -- ideological struggle. laura from twitter says if nato had been disbanded, we would have a better relationship with russia. consider howd relations between russia and the west would have change without nato. russian rhetoric is clear.
i think the alliance has been very clear since the cold war, but the mission has changed. the alliance has been looking outward at threats well beyond russia. the idea for partnership for peace was to bring in russia's allies during the cold war, and then russia itself, into ways. the partnership for peace, and then the nato-russia council, which has been an opportunity for russians to see the inter-workings of nato and encourage the transparency that builds trust. aside, natotoric has proven that it can be a useful partner for the russians. in fact, when i served in bosnia alongside russian
troops. i do not think the russians truly see nato the way they did during the cold war. host: massachusetts. brian. independent line. caller: good morning -- good morning. i think we should mind our own business when it comes to russia and ukraine. we should focus on campaign financing your it of these millionaires in senate and focus on trade with china. it is an unfair trade deal putting people out of work. not everybody is college material. host: "none of our business" is what the caller said. guest: we have a congress that has not focused enough on
foreign policy, and what the caller has said is reflective of a believe that those who do it for their -- foreign affairs issues have to address. why does this matter -- matter -- why does nato matter? it is shared values to tackle global problems, but there has to be in understanding of what happens overseas matters in congressional districts. security, trade, economics, they are all interlinked. people might be more concerned with jobs, but whether or not those jobs can be kept, trade relations can be stable for develop --ll largely depend on stability overseas. "the -- photoof in "the washington post."
who is he? secretary general -- guest: he has been secretary he is coming up on the end of his term. you'll have to have a decision on who the next nato secretary-general will be. what is critical to understand is he has guided the alliance through perhaps its most critical mission to date, nato's surge in afghanistan, the acceptance that the troops sent to afghanistan for a peacekeeping meeting -- peacekeeping mission in kabul are a part of the campaign that began in 2009. this was no easy task for the secretary-general. host: he addressed the issues of the ukraine while in washington, d.c. here is a little bit of it and
then we'll get your take. [video clip] military action in the ukraine is in blatant breach of international commitments and in violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. the annexation of crimea through a so-called referendum held at gunpoint is illegal and illegitimate. efforts toes all find a peaceful political solution. this is a wake-up call for the euro atlantic community, for nato, and for all of those committed to a europe free and at peace. call" is the-up phrase he used.
guest: i would say that. he was adamant. europe has to think not just about the security threats within its own borders, what also on a global squeal -- global scale as well. while we might think of russia as an old problem, i would encourage us to look at it as a new challenge. i am not sure that it will turn into the major challenge of the 15 years, but i think he is right in terms of nato's much of thesess how nations commit to the alliance. there has been a running battle for years about the european defense budget not be enough to support nato operations. the u.s., by some measures, 70% of alliance operations. at the same time, i do not think there is nearly enough attention paid to what our european allies
can provide in terms of capacity to the combat power of the alliance. secretary-general anders fogh rasmussen has been tireless in trying to implement efforts not going to increase european defense budgets, but changing the lines to adapt to a new array of threats, and we're not talking about conventional the insurgencies, but cyberattacks. the secretary-general has been forward-looking. it will be incumbent upon his successor to drive these issues forward. i think his speech at brookings was a watermark and we will need to look at european leadership and at the white house and see how they follow on with regards to the secretary-general's speech. twitter, a viewer says do you not think that putin is poking fun at nato because nobody has an appetite for another war.
that is do not think where the russians are going. while he might intimidate ukraine and the nato allies, he's really focused on crimea for now. not think he will go further into the ukraine? guest: he understands there is a significant difference in the appetite for confrontation in crimea as opposed to when you move beyond crimea. there were some loans by nato -- again, the moves that we see now, fundamentally kicking areia out of the g-8, these designed to hurt because nobody wants to threaten something we cannot follow through on. i do not think it is so much nobody has a stomach for it. there is certainly war
weariness, think about the enormity of the decision saying we are going to defend the sovereignty of ukraine by resorting potentially to all-out war with russia. that is just not a situation that is credible. in this day and age you must be more agile, focused, and go after what really hurts, and that is when focus on economic stations erected and individuals will be critical -- economic sanctions directed at individuals will be critical. marc jacobson talking about nato, the goal of nato in the ukraine and the situation there. jerry. massachusetts. democrats line. ukraine,alking about state johnretary of
kerry supporting neo-nazis to take over the government at gunpoint? they did not have enough votes to impeach the president who is office, but he is still legitimate by constitutional votes. he is still legitimate president. at the same time, the neo-nazis, the ones using snipers, killing people, walking around with wereikas on their jackets forcing people in eastern ukraine and crimea to take some kind of action. -- 95% to on 90 rejoin russia. for 500e part of russia years. it give me a break. russia is not responsible for these problems. the united states has been
waiting more -- waging war all over the place. i am not sure russia will be happy having to deal with age-old differences, both ethical and political in the ukraine. i think what you point out is reflective of a great deal of propaganda that has been flying around in the region, some from the russians, some from the , but therepposition are certainly some radical, right-wing, and even fascist elements out there, but they are not representative of what the ukrainian people desire for the country. it points up the larger issue for the ukraine -- since the revolution they have not done enough to develop a government that has sufficient rule of law, oversight, anticorruption mechanisms to really engender the trust of the people. we have to remember the situation in kiev over the last
several months has been reflective of failures by the ukrainian people and the government to get things in hand just as much as external intervention. do not get me wrong, russian intervention has not helped in crimea. it is wrong. as secretary anders fogh rasmussen and president obama has made clear, illegitimate acts, but we have to give people the time to term in their destiny that determine their damnedest -- destiny. host: what does this bode for the future of funding for nato? guest: it is a discussion going on this morning on capitol hill and it will continue. how does the change in the east impact not just the budget, but looking at the quadrennial
review that has just come out and the future to our commitment to the alliance, i suspect that with leadership on the house i republican congressman mike chris murphy,n dealing with these issues on their respective committees on a daily basis, they will have to specifically address what does this mean, not just for the role in nato,s but how we want to see the nato alliance move forward. host: how well do other countries do in terms of their contribution? guest: only a few nations reach a 2% gdp target. figure. a fan of the 2% it is an invalid mechanisms -- input mechanism. i am more interested in what the outcomes are.
you can add in all sorts of things to your list of what the specific country provides. for example, let's say i count the pensions that i provide to our veterans and discharged soldiers in the figure four hours total contributions to nato. that will inflate it. a countryther have that focuses a smaller amount on . critical set of capabilities host: joe louis from twitter says what is the relationship between the u.n. and nato? guest: nato provides political legitimacy for euro it -- euro atlantic honors to take action, but what divides international legitimacy is the united nations. nato is 28 nations. the united nations is much larger. if the nato alliance needs to
take action and it wants political legitimacy from major players such as india, brazil, china, you have to get you and sanctions. just the other day, the united nations agreed to renew the u.n. resolutions that authorize international actors such as nato to continue operations in afghanistan. so, there is a political relationship, but think of the u.n. as the conscious of the world, if you will, providing legitimacy, whereas nato is one particular alliance focus on collective security, but often asked to take action on behalf of the united nations. host: katarina. virginia. republican line. caller: i am a russian-american, and by no means do i want a ipeat of the cold war, but agree with previous callers, and i am glad to see the american
population, american citizens are finally seeing what is andening in the ukraine with this illegitimately elected new government. israel. i have traveled in the region. isave a friend -- radical real. i have traveled in the region and their friends in the region. it is mind-boggling that our taxes are going to fund this volunteer militia in ukraine, even if the united states knows there is a slight opportunity, slight chance there is radicalism, why in the world are we supporting this government? do you remember what happened in the u.s. in the media when the russians passed anti-gay laws? this is a little but worse than that.
-- little bit worse than that. so, it is very disheartening, and your guest, i have to give them credit, made some rational remarks, however there are some things that he said -- russia invaded georgia, which is not true, it was the other way around, but nevertheless, i am glad to see the american people, those that are reading the news newsistening to european channels, not the american ones -- host: we will leave it there. guest: catarina, thank you for being engaged. it is critical for people to remain engaged on these issues. with regards to the extremism, stability is critical to combating extremism. that is what the united states and european allies need to help .ring into the ukraine and kiev enable them.
provide resources they need to create the stability that can help to combat the extremism. furtherarantee -- instability will breed extremism, and the way to combat that is with better government systems, stronger measures, and dealing with the political and economic situation as a primary mechanism in the situation. it fairom twitter, is to say nato membership would constitute a political or economic change for ukraine? guest: absolutely. earth shattering. the issue over whether or not to nations,articular ukraine and georgia, have been the most politically sensitive discussions with regards to future nations joining nato. there are other nations on a pathway to joining nato. macedonia, and i think what you have with ukraine and georgia -- the idea of them
becoming part of nato is what drives putin, the russians, utty.tly n do the russians still perceive nato as a organization focus to them, and i think the inclusion of georgia and the ukraine would change the dynamic significantly, but i do not believe that this time the 28-member nations would be anywhere near unanimous with offering either ukraine or georgia nato membership in the near future. what is the process of a --ntry joining nato -- joining nato? guest: you have the membership a session program. you cannot bring in a country that is non-interoperable with nato military forfeits --
forces. you have to make sure there is a degree of transparency. it takes years. take a look back, the first warsaw pact nations to join the nato alliance, such as poland, the czech republic, and hungry, these were nations that were ready to join early on, and with members and iring have to develop their military and political transparency standards to meet those they can truly integrate as a group of the mockers is that band together for collective defense. host: next call from wisconsin. mike. independent line. caller: good morning. it it would seem to me that the economic realities -- the fact of the matter is the russians,
putin, they control resources they keep the european economy moving. applyingnnot see them meaningful sanctions against the russians when they have a stranglehold on them. host: caller? sorry. go ahead and guest: -- go ahead. guest: the caller is right. you are dealing with an economic battle. we are exiting the winter, entering spring. you have a different dynamic in the warmer months. at the same time, the europeans have alternatives. tore is clearly a great deal worry about in terms of natural resources in the eastern mediterranean and black sea region, but i disagree with the asler in thinking it is one-sided as that. russia will have to sell gas and consumers,ly for the
but for the international environment. a dropping in oil -- a drop in oil would be a wonderful thing in terms of political leverage companies will be a volatile issue. host: you are a venture than way to brussels. what is going on there? myst: i will join organization, the german marshall fund, as he put on our we putbrussels forum -- on our annual brussels forum. ukraine is top of the agenda. we are these we will have nato secretary-general anders fogh commissionerd eu catherine ashton, both of whom are finishing terms this year. we will also have two former , so itcretary-general's will be an interesting chance to see where nato has come from,
and where it is going. what can we draw from the experience of the last three nato secretary-general's in terms of understanding where the nato -- euro atlantic partnership needs to go in the future. formally with the international security assistance force. what was your job? guest: my job was to provide political and international generaladvice to first, davis, and then john allen, helping them manage the coalition, 28 nations, and 15 nations in terms of a collective, political agenda in a complex environment is often more demanding for military commanders and the combat operations themselves.
so, my job was to help prevent smaller problems from becoming larger problems. it was a great honor to work with nato in afghanistan than in serving in uniform in 2006, and as i mentioned, in uniform before that in 1996. so, really seen the evolution of an alliance that had to come of its own in a dynamic and complex environment. host: georgia. democrats line. caller: mr. jacobson, you said earlier that russia is an old problem, and is it possible that russia could see europe and america as old problems, given that we were involved with the russian civil war, the german invasion in world war i and and the way russia views nato, they might see the ukraine and georgia as red lines
and given that the u.s. still operates under the monroe doctrine, we would not tolerate russian bases in our hemisphere, so why wouldn't the russian city americans in the ukraine -- and european involvement in the ?kraine as red lines guest: you hit spot on on what leaders need to understand. look at things through russian eyes. i am not saying is correct, but we're not talking about something that is 50 years old. 19th-centuryssia history, and you'll understand expansion. i am not saying it is right, but in order to solve these problems, we will have to understand that putin, albeit a czarist reflective of a and looking long-term
in terms of a nastier style of are all in its region about. it is not a new problem. you are absolutely right. host: steve. austin, texas. republican line. you are on with marc jacobson. forer: c-span, thank you taking my call. i have two or three points to make and i will make them quick. if we come out successful in whatever our objectives are, which have not instated, how will it benefit the man on the street going to work every day? it is not like going to go to $1.50 a gallon. expansionism,is whereas we were once an independent country, we once again are taking on the pursuits of the crown.
still working in defense of this country's interests, we are working in defense of somebody else's. number three, the only thread, it seems like, to not ramping up the cold war again is that some rich people value in their defense stocks will go down. guest: i would remind the caller that from the very birth of the nation we have understood that involvement overseas impact what happens at home. theainly after the birth of nation, we had to deal with france, pirates overseas, and people caught that was far off, why do we have to be concerned with what is going on over there? today, ween then and have to understand that this is a small world.
what happens overseas matters. instability in europe will shatter our economy as well as the european economy. global instability, regional instability, these are things that lead to conflict, and it is much better to deal with some of these problems on a political and economic level now, even though it might cost us some money, then having to deal with them as potential military threat later on. host: marie. minnesota. democrats line. --ler: i am interesting in interested in what you are saying, but i am more interested in what is going on with the immigration problem and the people over there to the south coming over and taking all of our jobs. more, that would be interesting than you people trying to help us and defend us. what is the u.n., and the
relationship with our problems with immigration. i am really serious. one thing that is important is the ukraine and russia have problems, and yes, it influences us in a certain way, but i think the problems we have right now of people stealing our jobs is a lot more important than what is going on with putin. as far as mitt romney, sitting there blaming hillary clinton and barack obama for what is going on in russia, that does not even make sense. just keep the war machine going. guest: i certainly think politics needs to once again and at the waters edge, and there should be a unified response on what to do in the ukraine. i understand there were discussions in the senate were certain members of congress may differ with the president, but what you said reflects a larger
issue. that is that people come to this country, people look at the united states as a beacon. it is about our values. for nato, this is what binds the nations together. it is not just the collective threat. baltic nations, eastern europe, they might see russia as a higher priority, but what truly binds us is the values we share with european colleagues. as long as the united states remains a strong symbol of what is good in the world, what people aspire to, the good news is you will have a strong, collective alliance, and perhaps one of the challenges will be more and more people will want to come to the country, want to come to the country from overseas. , albuquerque, new mexico. caller: good morning, mr. jacobson.
two questions. it seemed like we had a partner in putin in terms of the iran situation and it is nothing like we have a partner anymore. theson's war" country was stabilized to the poor were mechanical bridge off could not manage the country anymore, -- mikhail gorbachev could not manage the country anymore to where the wall fell. it seems lighter food once this pressure back on america. it seems we have a real problem here, and it worries me more than that all bets are off as far as our nuclear problems with the second-biggest power in the world. -- guest: you hit on some
problems with afghanistan. a rapid departure from afghanistan in terms of our support at the time for those fighting the soviets really became a challenge that in the end i would argue leads to the instability that we saw in the 1990's, and of course, we have an back in afghanistan for over a decade now. you have to finish a conflict as effectively as you begin it. this is one of the challenges for the nato alliance as it waits on the government of afghanistan to sign the bilateral security agreement with the united states, and then later a parallel nato document that will provide the legal underpinning for forces to remain for operation resolute support, which will be the mission in afghanistan after 2014. morning --ine this russia warns the west and may change its stance on iran.
what does that mean? an issue that has to be dealt with, how do you deal with the ukraine without impacting discussions over iran and syria as well. this is where the president will have to weigh the risks, benefits, rewards. this is foreign policy, diplomacy. just have a single challenges. they build on each other. marc jacobson, formerly of nato, currently at the german marshall fund, thank you. guest: thank you. host: we will hear from olivier knox, and then talk about something called telephone diplomacy. then have jon hilsenrath
of "the wall street journal to go first, a news update. lady michelle obama travels to china today. white house officials preparing for the visit say she will avoid issues such as human rights, trade and cyber security, and instead say she will speak on the importance of education and promote exchanges. turning to afghanistan, an official there says an assault on a police station in the killed 10east has police officers. the early-morning attack included a suicide bomber, two remotely detonated bombs, and seven insurgents. the taliban took responsibility for the attack, the latest in the insurgents ahead of elections.
john szabo will discuss his recent trip to afghanistan and give an assessment on efforts. the united states has interviewed more than 100 ilion dollars in the last 12 years to reconstruction efforts. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> today's young adults, the so-called millennial generation, that are having troubles darting in life -- getting started in life because of the economy, they are paying money into assistant to support benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance to get when they themselves retire. there needs to be a rebalancing of the social compact. it is a difficult challenge for this country politically because is social security and
medicare half of our budget, by far the biggest thing that we we but it is symbolically are all in this together. these are programs that affect everybody. the old method of these programs does not work. >> paul taylor on the looming generational showdown sunday night at 9:00 p.m. in a few weeks, your chance to west on theng middle east, iraq, afghanistan, 3:00 p.m. noon-to- eastern. also joining the online discussion of the new biography.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me now is olivier knox of yahoo! news. wasory you put together birthed out of a picture of president obama talking in his office. could you set of the picture and tell us about the story? an early weekend in march the president had the longest phone call of his presidency. he spoke to vladimir putin for 90 minutes on the phone. the white house released an official photograph of the president on the phone in the actuallyce, and it revived my interest into a story i've been looking into for a while, the president of the united states, how does he call a world leader? it is a complicated process. bill clinton,s to george w. bush, and spoke to
some people inside of the white house, trying to paint a picture. host: when that happens, walk us through it. guest: the process can take months. usually junior days on either side will reach out to either side and say what is your guy want to talk about, what does my guy want to talk about, what are the areas of agreement. phonesly on the putin call, there were not a lot of areas of agreement. they agree on a time for the call, the national security staff connects the call, a brief moment were senior advisers are on the line, and in the classic line, please hold for the president. there is not a lot of time spent on hold. host: if translators are involved, they are put into the mix. guest: that is right, that could add to the time of a phone call. the president does not speak
russian or chinese. it could have a lot of time. they are part of the call. while this is going on there are people in the situation room that are frantically typing up an informal transcript of what is being said back and forth. that transcript, unfortunately, is never really made public. calls are- phone rarely -- are never casual, spur of the moment? guest: rarely casual. ofrge h.w. bush was a fan just reaching out and talking. george w. bush made one casually arranged phone call where he found himself with a 20-minute gap, and he said the dalai lama is in the hospital, i have not talked to him, get him on the phone. what kind of background is
the president get before the phone call is made? guest: this is perhaps the most adjusting part. the president gets a national security dossier, a profile of the person he will be speaking to, including everything from their temperament, are they hot cold-blooded, are they healthy, either illnesses in their immediate family, either having -- having marital problems. host: this is all for the president to read before the phone call takes place. guest: this is all designed for small talk. there is an element of controlling the smalltalk that they make. of course, it is useful. they look at political pressure those leaders might be under. you do not want to be asking somebody for something that they actually cannot give. host: the photo that we see with the president on the phone talking to vladimir putin, it is
choreographed, does that mean it is scripted as far as what goes back and forth? they come in with talking points, there are usually senior aides in the room with the president. you do not see them in that photograph, but in many other official photos you can see at least one other senior officials sometimes on the call, sometimes in the room with the president. while it is not scripted, it is heavily prepared. they do not want to leave a lot of things to chance. host: olivier knox will talk thet telephone diplomacy, process of how it happens and what happens during these calls. if you want to ask questions e-mail.can send this why the this point --
telephone in the age of communication that we live in? the first phone was installed in 1877 under rutherford b. hayes. the phone number was 1. host: obviously. [laughter] guest: kind of great. the only line was to and from treasury. 137 years later we have e-mail, there is skype, the president can you secure videoconference. when i talk to these various current and former aides, they say look, the phone is immediate, a relatively easy thing to secure. intimate.voices more moreice-to-voice is intimate. it is immediate. world leaders like it. reallys out to remain
one of the central goals of presidential diplomacy. host: how much of the president's time is on the phone question mark guest: a lot of -- phone? guest: a lot of the time, and i cannot get a clear picture because the white house is not disclose all the phone calls, but i give you a picture. theng the fight to ratify nuclear arms treaty, the president spoke to the ben russian president something on the order of 15 times. there was a lot of telephone diplomacy. the president has spoken a lot of time during the ukraine crisis on the phone. there've been 21, 23 phone calls. it obviously absent flows depending on international situation. host: as part of the yahoo! story there is a series of pictures you can find online
about other presidents on the phone, and talk a little bit about the historical perspective. asthis always been a means far as diplomacy is concerned? not.: it has while the phone is ubiquitous today, it was not in 1877. rutherford b. hayes did not make a ton of phone calls. he could not have called overseas if you wanted to, really. it has only escalated. we have seen new modes of communication. the president does do a fair number of video conferences. he can do that from the situation room, camp david. sometimes those take precedence over traditional phone calls, but you see an escalation, president eisenhower, kennedy making phone calls. i will say, this is a disappointment, there is no red telephone, no u.s.-russia hotline. the president does not pick up
the red phone and get a direct line. the disappointed me. it started as a teletype system. the white house would call the pentagon and relay a message in the pentagon would secure it to a -- to the kremlin. host: does the president have a phone on his desk? guest: he can. you have seen the photograph of the phone on the corner of the resolute desk, as it is called, but it does not always lived there. a former national security aide told me it stays plugged in and it can live in the drawer on the president's side, but it is not always there if you look at photos of bill signings and things like that. host: olivier knox here to talk about telephone diplomacy. washington, d.c., independent line. how much independence do
the presidents have on these phone calls? i remember on the lead up to the war in iraq, george bush had a withrence -- conversation the president of france and he cited biblical scripture, and some apocalyptic themes, and i think the president of france kind of just agreed and said ok, and when he hung up he told his aides what is this guy talking about. in terms of having the conversation choreographed, i guess, how choreographed is it, do aides ever step in? host: ok. guest: all great questions. it is relatively choreographed. they generally come in with a series of things they want to be asking, maybe they want to set up so the other world leader could be asking for something. examples -- requesting more troops for afghanistan, for
example, or letting the other world leader called into ask for disaster aid. they are fairly choreographed. one person who serves several presidents said the president knows he is the president, he will say what the president wants. you can only choreographed that so far. a sense ofere transparency about what conversation occurs? can somebody go to a website and get a transcript? instant --e was one instance of a transcript in really stand it was a mistake. president george w. bush spoke to the newly elected president of the philippines, and the philippines government had just come in and released a transcript. the white house was not happy because they wanted to summarize the phone calls with reporters with all of the serious issues,
and instead we got small talk. did i call you too late, no, remember we are in different time zones -- that was the only time i can make of a transcript been released. the informal transcript put together at the white house, that does not get released because that would be -- and they putd be that -- together at the white house does not get released and that is too bad because that would be a fascinating document. it is really rare that you get something like the putin phone call where you look at the kremlin readout, the white house readout, and you see just how far at odds they are. there was a phone call about the national security agency spying between president obama and president francois hollande of france. from the readout it sounded like they were on different phone calls. all that is important is for the report look at the summaries.
leonard. owings mills, maryland. democrats line. how often does the president choose videoconferencing? it seems as he may face would always help relations. if it is not that often, is it because of technology issues, or would it be more security concerns? guest: super question. that is the other popular means of communication, the secure teleconferencing system. the president uses it quite a bit, but you are right, not every leader has that kind of secure set up, and i was told many leaders have it only because the united states set it up. you can find photographs of president obama on secure videoconference is in the situation room. the people that really like it a lot, while the united states had
a large troop cousins in iraq, troopent bush would do -- presence in iraq, president bush would do conferences on wednesday. it is a different medium. you see each other, and to us is in the picture, who is in the long-distance meeting. that can figure out, that person is not here, why are they not there? it is also a helpful means of communication. it was interesting to me that the phone, not the videoconference, has remained such a dominant thing. host: as part of your piece, there is a photo of president kennedy calling from what seems to be an unsecured line. can they make a call from an unsecured line? guest: when they are on the road, they can make lots of calls from unsecured calls.
the only difference is they are a lot more careful. they can make calls from a billet during places -- and the will during array of laces. they can make them from air force one, but they do not like that because there is a lag time in communication. of course, a hotel room, backstage at a fundraiser. all of these things are possible. the president can reach out to anyone anytime you want. host: dennis. fairfax, virginia. independent line. the phone is so vitally critical in situations of emergencies, some sort of thermal nuclear accident, it creates certainty. at least agreed to direct communication that is absolutely vital to decision making. the united states and russia could destroy each other. china can probably make a mess.
we need to be very, very careful andy on how we handle putin what is going on in today's world because this is a very dangerous man whose tapestry is not so much time to fight for communism anymore, obviously. i think it is a done deal because he is a billionaire and does not want to go back to that lifestyle, but he has to fight for strategic business interests, and that is where the fight is today. it is about economics, that is all. host: "the wall street journal" had an interesting piece about negotiations between secretary of state john kerry and his russian counterpart, and at one point the russian counterpart excused himself to call vladimir putin, and apparently he did not take his call. if you look back over the last couple of years, you'll find that not taking somebody's call, or it does not happen a lot, it is a feature of tense diplomatic
standoff so we have had. at one point, the pentagon could not reach people, counterparts in egypt. the russian prime minister cannot reach the president of russia, which says something about his ability to cut a deal. host: there is a picture of richard nixon on the telephone. how to telephone democracy change because of him? really bige was one change after nixon because of the watergate case that played a role in his downfall, the white house does not record these phone calls. it is a huge change, and his appointment for journalism because it would make for an amazing historical record, but the white house stopped -- those those cap >> phone calls. host: transcripts are written in real time. writing in real time, it amounts to an unofficial transcript, and they do take her with it -- tinker
sense that it accurately represented american policy, clear misunderstanding, and they remove what one official called unintentional slips. if you forget to mention the united states agency for international development, may be used make that one in. intentional slights stay in. host: jacob. champaign, illinois. democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on telephone diplomacy, and i think that this in the internet is the wave of the future. i think we will find it easier to use the people to bring peace with russia and understand what biblical democracy is. you have to give a little to get a little, and that means people
like russia get their land back, and will be give a little to get a little, maybe we can become better friends with russia so that russia and china can come together on the north korea peninsula and bring peace in that hostile region. guest: obviously an optimistic vision of international diplomacy. one of the things that you raise people contact, and the white house is very aware of that and the other means is communication, in the oval office, and on the road, those are all parts of the picture. it is kind of funny in the era of high-tech tools, how important these age-old approaches remain. about theread dialogue that takes place when leaders from russia, leaders from china, call the united states. talk about the process.
guest: back in the george w. bush administration, the toughest calls for the ones with the chinese president, mostly hu jintao. the chinese insisted at the top of the phone call president bush had to recite the formal sentences about u.s. policy toward china, so we had to a one-chinalief in policy, no unilateral change in the status quo. it is a very formal series of sentences that they insisted the president had to say each time, and that had to go through a translator. so, the people i talked to said those phone calls were tough -- it might be a slight exaggeration -- but the first 50 minutes were spent in this formal back and forth, and only in the last part of the phone call did you really get down to business. host: this was every exchange
that took place? guest: every exchange. president bush was expected to recite this paragraph. guest: -- host: the languages -- changespose unilateral in the taiwan strait guest: issa, it is extremely formal language. -- obviously, it is extremely formal language. it was the only time i can find a genuinely scripted series of sentences. no other exchanges with ?eaders are so formal guest: if there are, people i talked to did not reveal them. every leader has to be told something, you are my pal, i respect your country's history -- i found no evidence that
another country have that expectation. host: the topic of telephone diplomacy. olivier knox of yahoo! news. the people, or the aides in the room, you said they listened in. are they in the room, are they somewhere else? guest: there's usually somebody in the situation room, and are onquently gains in the room other phones or their to be consulted if necessary. sometimes it is just one person. there are photographs of various american presidents on air force one making calls to world leaders with one aid in the room. it is hard to gauge because they are official photos and they
just give you the president, but there are phone calls from his workspace in the treaty room where he looks like he is almost by himself. i was who the photographer is there, so we could surmise there are others around. it depends. you could see photos of the president with five or six aides. sometimes you will see that the videoconferences tend to be in groups, much more of a meeting setting. host: can he take calls from his private residence? guest: he can, and there is also evidence that he places phone calls from, for example, his rental property in hawaii. there is one photograph in a great slideshow we put together of president obama calling from -- calling servicemen and women overseas from his rental property. absolutely. fromn make phone calls unsecure locations as long as the conversation is careful.
host: dave. washington. democrats line. caller: thank you for doing this. i know there has been strained and form relationships because of nsa concerns. i wonder if that comes up at all in terms of conversations with foreign leaders -- does that change the way they communicate or put any kind of concerns on that? guest: it resulted intense conversations with german chancellor angela merkel, and french president francois hollande, and one of the great readouts that i mentioned, the french account of a phone call between president obama and francois hollande and the u.s. summary, they sound like they are on different phone calls. part of that is when you release a public document like a readout, you are also play into
your home audience. it is hard to tell just how bad it was. a way to tell is when they say they had a frank exchange of views, which is saying i wanted to throw a lamp at them. host: does the current president allow any photographers except his own white house wants to document the guest: the most common source for these pictures -- for all the presidents and the slideshow on the piece are official photographers. they work for the white house, for the president. for the ministration. they're there to document history. this president has used them to shape his image. they have released a lot more photos to the public than previous administrations. usually independent news media is not allowed. some of that is understandable. you won't have independent news media in the room when he is
having a classified conversation. think every photograph and there is from an official photographer. host: we talk about diplomacy. calls to congress follow the same protocol? guest: we don't look too much at the domestic phone calls because they have been less interesting to me as a student of foreign policy. maybe that's a good idea for the next story. host: next call is from john in herndon, virginia. democrats like. caller: thanks for taking my call. a long time ago, few people used to know what was going on in other countries. now everything is out there. every president, whatever they do, the media is going. ,ne thing i don't understand is they don't go to china to demand
things. ve giveused it to ha and take with respect to each other. they are so arrogant. they don't respect other countries. i have a lot of respect for john mccain. putin friends, it's not going to help the situation. it will lead to more chaos. the president can do nothing when you have our leaders insulting other presidents he has to work with. guest: i really wish it were true that we were reporting everything and had access to everything. i really wish that we could get a transcript of these phone calls. in terms of bygone civility, i tend to be skeptical and that
human nature has not changed all that much. they went to china as a power-play. it was a relatively cordial visit. we shouldn't lose track of the motivation there. calling people plugs and tyrants is an age-old tool of statecraft and communication. i don't think it will take it all that seriously. about thetalk exchange that took place between president obama and the iranian president. especially how they left the phone call. guest: big disappointment. cannot get the white house to tell me who pressed the president on that one word that translated as "goodbye." details matter more in the readout of the official summary of these calls
than they do in the actual call to the leader. it was great to talk to this person and their english was really great and that made it easier. -- i loveoquialisms those kinds of details. all they would tell me was that it was a u.s. government official. host: how open were the folks you talked to about this process? guest: you will see that there are no named sources. people said, look, i can't talk to you about this if it comes back to me because i'm talking but a process that is not that open. they were that open. agreed to not quote directly, we had a back and forth. they really didn't want their names attached to a lot of these comments.
they worried about blabbing to a reporter about a process that was never open. i would rather not get trouble. host: jerry up next from salt lake city, utah. . independent line. caller: i was wondering how the president talks to leaders of the world -- third world nations. ofst: they have a lot conversations. if you go through and look at she white house' summary of phone calls come you get a lot of comments about calls to someone -- the reason is it's their national day. we will call and make sure relations are ok. infrequently, a president goes to another region, having a flurry of phone calls before that to line up the agenda bit. it does happen quite a bit. in this latest round of
telephone diplomacy, he called the leaders of the former soviet republic. than it isfrequent to close allies. i think he has talked most to benjamin netanyahu. it certainly happens. it a thirdt to label world country, but when nelson mandela passed he called to offer his condolences. it is less splashy for the news media than some of these other high-profile calls. so maybe that's why you don't hear quite as much about it. host: has the u.s. installed any of the systems in foreign countries? guest: i doubt it. there are a couple of other
systems -- the french have one that they built. this is getting into that sensitive area. people not wanting to tell me too much about this. a lot of these high tech or videoconferences -- a lot of those are built in america. host: john from georgia. republican line. caller: as soon as he called , isia a villain station think there week. financially, they have to be in chaos right now. they're not going to give up that base down there where they can get their ships out and stuff like that. this is not much of a deal. it was stupid to even worry about it. they have bigger problems. guest: interesting point about the way we look at this crisis. sometimes we forget to clearly
identify our core interest versus the other countries core interest her. that explains why it is unlikely that russia will get back i'm you. it is absolutely strategic for them. it not as we talk about being a core national security interest. r202) 585-3880 fou democrats. (202) 585-3882 for republicans. (202) 628-0184 four independents. a little bit about yahoo! news. guest: is the largest online news source in the country. we have been building up our presence in washington. you may have seen pieces by our political correspondent.
chris moody. we cover politics and policy. we have operations in new york, california and washington. we are a very lucky place. we are growing. our audience is growing. we are investing in operations in a way that has been challenging. host: when you are putting the story together, other than what you have told us, what other interesting things would you highlight for the audience? things that ithe really liked and i want to delve back into was the informal calls. i got a little bit of a read on at camp david. barbara bush comes out to hear him chatting with someone. she asked, who are you talking to ?
it was the french president at the time. i would like to do some of the presidential smalltalk. it is very interesting to me to see how these people with an immense amount of power in their exchanges sound awfully ordinary. it's an interesting area. -int: these are plugged phones being used. guest: in addition to a photo with the old-time a phone, you will also see that there are very few wireless phones. very few cell phones. it is true -- you don't see a lot of those cell phone calls. and they can be done. i think the president has placed a few cell phone calls. you see a politician borrowing someone cell phone to call their wife or husband or father or mother. host: that's ok? guest: they're good about it. their discipline. they're good about tailoring what they say.
host: jesse for olivier knox. alabama. caller: i was calling to respond to the diplomatic process. we are utilizing 20th-century ld or politics to address our current issues. we went into iraq with heavy armor and our troops were ill-prepared for the task and the mission they were to face. if america is going to move forward, engage in innovative thought process that will allow us to think outside the box and not hold to the rhetoric. some of the things that john mccain says -- i think his approach to addressing the issues in the world today are
completely antiquated. he is an individual who probably needs to calm down and learn from some of the 21st century leaders that will be set before him. guest: an interesting take because we are talking about the heavy, consistent use of a technology that reached the white house in 1877. coolidge, if i remember correctly. of myas the root fascination with the story. about how this -- i can reach people across the globe on skype. and texte online chats yet, here they are using this old technology that is really very much the preferred to will. you asked me about something that didn't make the piece. something about unsecured lines. and its united states
allies decided to engage militarily in libya, the president list a bunch of phone calls. he was on a trip to brazil. tells you about modern technology. the confidence they have in their ability to reach people unsecured lines. to europeanlls leaders to line up the military operation in libya. host: robert from louisiana. democrats line. i hate to get up the cuba is right-- in our back door. if we were to lift those sanctions off of cuba and allow -- ito join the union think it would be no problem.
because it cuba and would be like crimea to the soviet union. and let itve crimea iron out itself. guest: it brings to mind a really interesting moment in american diplomacy in the last year. mandela,ial for nelson president obama was going down the receiving line and shook hands with role castro. a shift from a 19th century form of diplomacy to a stone age tactic of looking someone in the eye and shaking their hand. there is no sign that there is a big push on cuba behind the handshake. it's not as important as the phone call to the iranian president. --s another very interesting host: thanks for your time.
we will hear from jon hilsenrath. talking about genitalis plan for the federal reserve. we will get a news update from c-span radio. >> there is more fallout today for russia's annexation of ukraine's crimean peninsula. angela merkel says the european union is preparing to place more sanctions on russia. she adds that the g8 form of leading economies has been suspended indefinitely. russia holds the presidency of the g8. in sochi inin was june. turning to the economy, jobless numbers show the number of people seeking unemployment benefits rose by 5000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 1000. that is still close to prerecession levels. digests a stable job market. the less volatile four-week average fell by 3500.
the lowest since late november. president obama in a videotaped message says a nuclear agreement with iran can open up new possibilities and prosperity. comments come as his annual message to iranians, marking the persian new year. this year's message coincides with nuclear negotiations between the u.s. and iran. the program in the net states -- the health care program in the united states -- if we don't deal with the issue of innovation and don't translate all those findings that occur at the university level into health care products which are affordable and that treat disease and cures them -- if we don't understand how to treat or
cure them, there is no point in talking about the solution with the health care problem. islth insurance coverage going to provide health insurance. when it comes to drugs or premiums or subsidies, where are the subsidies going to come from. from taxpayers money. people have to pay for that. there is a limit. theeconomy is basically science of limitations. if we don't deal with a better system of working on understanding -- how we can take care of our own health -- there's no point in having health insurance. it will be like what happens in colombia right now. everybody can have access to health care, but what happens in when it comes to
medications and access to drugs, governments are having problems affording them. >> the future of health care. sunday night at 8:00. c-span. 435 years, bringing public affairs event from washington directly to you. when you in the room at congressional hearings, white events, briefings and conferences. and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house . all is a public service a private industry. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch this in hd. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now, jon hilsenrath of the wall street journal. the author of yellin and the fed. we will talk about the book. our front-page story about her.
coming in from this weekend's meeting. guest: yesterday was her first day running a fed meeting. she became chairwoman of the fed at the beginning of february. this was her first meeting. she had challenges on her hands. the fed has been doing two things. it has been pulling back the bond buying program. trying to make decisions about when to start raising interest rates. that position at the fed is shifting a bit. investors were rattled by what she had to say. investors -- the consensus in the market was the fed would not start raising rates until late 2015. when they do, they will do a very small amounts. by the end of 2015, the expectation was the fed would not been push rates above one percent. we are reading between the
messages. to think that maybe they will go .25% higher in less time. the market is so caught up in the fed's monetary policies -- it has been such an important driver of not just the recovery but the stock market for the last couple of years. even tiny little changes like that can send stocks down over 100 points. that's what happened yesterday. host: was that a surprise to people? guest: there was a bit of a surprise. there are a couple of things going on. the fed puts out after every meeting a formal policy statement. forheir policy statements december 2012, they have been saying that they were going to even think about raising interest rates until the unemployment rate got to 6.5%. the unemployment rate is getting close. it was 6.7% in february.
they have changed the policy statement to make it bigger. .- to make it vaguer we got a chance to grill janet yellen on the fed's timing. what came out was a combination of changes to statements and the sense that they're still going to keep interest rates very low. they might move a little bit earlier than expected. that was the surprise. instead of moving in september of 2015, they would all move in april or june. she was very noncommittal on that point. financial markets are hypersensitive to what the fed does. which is one of the things that makes my job interesting. she got the front-page headline on the wall street journal. welcome to the job. it's a tough needle. host: how is he different from
ben bernanke? guest: somebody asked her about that yesterday. y are theays, ther same. what the economists call saltwater economists. she was educated at yale. bernanke got his phd at m.i.t.. they are of the mindset that the government has a role to play and the central bank has a role to play in addressing economic downturn. their general framework is the same. she is seen in the markets as being more dovish. more eager to address high unemployment and tolerate a bit more inflation then perhaps bernanke would. one of the things that were surprising was that people expected a dove to fly into the fed. instead, someone with hawkish talents might have shown up.
host: we will hear from her directly. you have questions of the leadership of janet yellen. four 585-3880 democrats. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. .202) 585-3882 for independents let's hear a bit from her from yesterday. she announced additional reductions to the federal reserve when it comes to asset purchases. about $55 billion. here's what she had to say. let me return towards decisions to make another measure reduction in the face of asset purchases. starting next month, we will be billionng $55 securities per month. down $10 billion per month from our current rate. after today's action takes
effect, we will continue to significantly expand our holdings of longer-term securities. we will also continue to roll over treasuring securities and reinvest printable payments for holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage backed securities. these sizable and still increasing holds will continue to put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates. support mortgage markets and to make financial conditions that are accommodative, hoping to support job creation and a return to the committee's objective. host: a lot of technical language. guest: what the fed has been doing -- you asked what she is like. you got an example of that. she is very technical. are oftens
somewhat robotic. she is also a woman who grew up in brooklyn. roboticher moving from to the girl from brooklyn. there,s of what she said the fed has been buying bonds since -- they have done it in three stages going back to 2009. they expanded their balance sheet from $800 billion in holdings to more than $4 trillion in holdings. aboutalance sheet is now the size of the balance sheet of jpmorgan and bank of america. both of those combined. they have been doing this because they believe that buying
all of these bonds is helping to hold down long-term interest rates. lever isitional short-term rates. they moved down something in which banks charge each other overnight. the consumer does not feel it directly. because the fed pushes those short-term rates all the way to zero during the financial crisis, they have been looking for other ways to try to stimulate the economy. the mechanism they have come up with is buying all these bonds, which is holding down long-term interest rates and your mortgage rates. helped to hold down your credit card rates. although they always seem to be high. what's happening right now is the fed feels like the economy has gone to a point where it doesn't need to keep getting its balance -- growing its balance sheet. down thesewing
purchases, hoping to get to a point where they don't have to moneyoping all of this into the financial system. they are seeing how the economy is doing along the way. if it meets their expectations, those expectations for moderate growth of around three percent -- if it meets those expectations, they will stop buying. eventually, they will let these things mature. one of the things she said, the unemployment rate is for her a number a anymore. itst: what she says is that is not just a number. this is why we talk about her being a dove. she has emphasized quite often that she thinks about the statistics in human terms. they aren't just numbers to her. representsyment rate
millions of people without jobs. she wants to do what is within her mandate to try to help those people. the other thing -- that's her broad framework. the more technical meaning when she says that is that the unemployment rate has been coming down. the fed is not satisfied with the signal they're getting. they think there are other things going on in that thatstic in the economy aren't captured in that statistic. there are more people today working part-time who aren't full-time. even though the unemployment rate is coming down, sometimes it's because people are scraping together a part-time job when they want full-time work. so the fed thinks there are still more capacity in the economy to grow a little faster
to create more jobs for people before it has to get too worried about inflation and raising interest rates. what is happening is as the unemployment -- they have been saying the rate was one of the main guideposts for when they would start raising interest rates. this is one of the things that freak people out yesterday. said there looking past the unemployment rate now and looking at other things. part-time workers and the rates of hiring and the extent to which people who have been unemployed for a long time are coming back into the job market. they think the one number does not tell the whole story. when the unemployment rate was high, they felt they could depend on that as a guideposts because it was clear that there was a lot of unemployment and they could afford to keep interest rates low. as it gets lower, they are saying they need to be more systematic in getting a full picture of the economy and
making a judgment about when rates start going a. host: jon hilsenrath joining us. the author brand-new e-book. i'm hesitant to call myself the author. in large parts of it. what we did is we -- when she became the chair, we built up a briefing book on, who is this person. we have been writing about her going back to the mid-1980's. one of my former colleagues wrote a story back in the 1980's about young economists of the day. they would've been in their 30's at the time. they were trying to understand the mysteries of unemployment and why it is slow to come down after a recession. like larryople
, people who got on to be policy makers. one of them was janet yellen. we went back through our records -- 40 years of our own reporting on janet yellen and the fed. if they want to know who this person is -- she is the most powerful economic policy maker in the world today. who is she? what is she bringing to the job? that's what we try to do in this book. give you an overview of who she is and what challenges she confronts and what her mindset is. host: first call is peter from new york. republican line. caller: good morning, guys. me read but this job one. i've seen him on the show quite a few times.
-- let me rebutt this one. they all seem to be apologists for wall street. i want your audience to read the article confessions of a hzatitative user by andrew r, which explains how fed policy is hurting main street and helping wall street. is a clone of ben bernanke he. the fed says they are trying to control inflation. this is not true. what they're trying to do is control deflation. what they are doing is transferring the cost of goods and services through inflation by increasing the money supply,
devaluing the dollar. street isor main going up while the business people are continuing to make money. they're laying people off. they haven't been hiring. the cost of living has been going up while family income has gone down. things --re are a few the first thing i talked about .s the charge by the caller i guess i would take exception to that. as a reporter on a beat covering the fed, i have three response willy's. when responsibility is to hold the institution accountable. it makes.ons -- i have three responsibilities. i explain what the fed is doing. these are compensated steps they're taking. part of my responsibility is to inform the public about what
it's up to so that the public can make informed judgments about its own future and the institutions. the third one is to break news. on the count ability question, i think that relates directly to -- are we apologists for wall street? i would throw out a couple of examples. some stories we have done that have helped hold the institution accountable. in 2009 we wrote a story about the chairman of the federal reserve in new york who was a board member for goldman sachs. we looked at his trading records and discovered that he had been buying goldman sachs stock during the financial crisis when the fed was pouring money into andbanks like goldman sachs
morgan stanley. because these regional fed banks are required by law to have members from the private sector. we disclosed these traits and he resigned the next day. trades and he resigned the next day. when we see instances where the institution is to be held accountable, we do it. the caller mentioned a couple of other economic points that are worth looking at. and i this quite often spent time looking at this and thinking about it. the fed is pumping all this money into the financial system. they have pushed rates to extraordinarily low levels. some very simply cannot models will tell you that when the fed pumps a lot money into the economy, it will cause inflation. it cheapens the value of the
dollar. we have an excess supply something, its value goes down. that hasn't happened. you might consider that to be a bit of a puzzle. you look at the value of the dollar, it has held steady. it rose a little bit during the financial crisis. it has been mostly steady over the last six or seven years. in fact, the dollar was declining in value in the 10 .ears that preceded but not since the crisis. not since the fed pumped all of this money into the financial system. inflation havef also been below the two percent target that the fed has. it begs the question, why is that happening? one of the reasons for that is value ofation and the
the dollar are not just a function of how much money the fed is putting out into the financial system, but a function of how that money is being used. how aggressively is being taken by banks and being went out to businesses and households. economistmething an calls the velocity of money. once you put $100 on the table, the people take it and let it out and put it to work in the economy. the velocity of money collapsed during the financial crisis because there was so much fear freezing up the financial system. you look at aggregate measures of debt planning. they have not risen much because somebody banks got burned her in the crisis. somebody households were learning that they have buried themselves up to their eyeballs. that been spending -- they have been trying to cut back their borrowing. even though the fed has been pushing so much money into the
system, it has been very slow to engage the annals. to engage the animal spirit. maybe what the fed is doing is helping mostly rich people and not everybody else. we could talk about that. that is a point worth discussing. twitter -- "aoff lot of members of the house rejected fed. how will they treat the new fed chairman or will it be the same?" guest: that's an interesting question. her press conference yesterday was not the first time we got to see her on a public stage. she has done three testimonies to congress since being nominated by the president. her testimony in february was really interesting because she went to the house to
deliver a semiannual report. , she wentid was went u up there and said, i'm going to stay here as long as you want me to stay and answer all of your questions. it was a very astute political move on her part. it helped to disarm some of her critics. she stayed there and answered all the questions from the republicans on the committee. whouding junior members don't get opportunities to have their questions answered because very often these hearings copper around noon. she went all the way until four clock. it was a marathon session. she is trying to engage these critics. -- she went all the way until four clock. 4:00. it'll all depend on how the
economy performs. low, theeps rates too judgment will not be gentle. andhe economy gets going inflation remains under control, she will be seen as a success. host: susan from mississippi. independent line. caller: good morning. the president came up with a $1.1 billion budget and he put in a new budget. i don't know how he could have a budget of any kind if he has an $18 trillion deficit. does the federal reserve feel about the president printing money? guest: good question. what is the relationship between the fed and the federal
government's fiscal policy ? we ran a budget deficit -- we should explain the difference between deficits and debt. the deficit is how much more the government spends on the military and social security and medicare than it takes in in revenues. during the financial crisis and after that, we ran deficits in excess of $1 trillion a year .ecause tax revenues collapsed spending on unemployment benefits rose. downeficit has been coming in the past two years as the otten stronger. we have had these fiscal battles in congress. onhas put some restraint
discretionary spending by the government. the deficit has come down. the government's debt remains very high. .t is different measures it's excess of $15 trillion. veryed has had a straightforward view on fiscal policy. what bernanke argued and what yellen has argued is that they needed to put in place a long-term plan for dealing with debt and the deficit. if you look at projections by the congressional budget office going out when he-40 years, we have this overpopulation retiring and collecting social security and medicare benefits. government spending is on a path , looking out 10-40 years out, spending to explode. what the fed has been begging
congress and the white house to do is put together a long-term plan to hold down these deficits in the long run. loose infiscal policy the short run because the economy so weak. don't cut back spending aggressively right now because the economy is weak. don't raise taxes very aggressively right now because the economy is weak. put together a credible plan to do it over 40 years. what the white house and congress have formulated is the opposite. they put together spending restraints in the short run that have affected discretionary spending not just on the budgets of nasa, but also on the military. a big squeeze on military spending. they have done little to address these longer-term problems related to medicare, social security, which are the real drivers in the long run a budget
deficits. -- long-run budget deficits. the fed thinks the fiscal policy ade its own job harder in the short run. caller: good morning. the real estate market is unsustainable. i had a three bedroom one bath house with a carport. i looked up the value of the $234,000 with taxes of $6,500. that is a snippet of a house -- she real estate market i
unsustainable. my son graduated four years ago and just landed a full-time job. another son is making around $30,000. i said, don't even think about buying real estate. i can't even imagine that they will ever be earning enough atey to purchase a home $30,000. i don't understand how we as a country are going to be able to move forward. guest: can i ask a question you g? have they gone up that neighborhood -- did prices fall and comeback were they going higher steadily? caller: i just looked at the pricing recently. i can't tell you -- there are other homes across the street and down a couple of doors that
have been remodeling. in 2012 sold for the low 200 thousands. 400s.'s the low right across the street, a couple of doors down, less than two years ago, they have up to that price over $200,000. it's insanity. guest: that's a really interesting point. our real estate market is potentially changing in ways that are very consequential for every american. the 1980's ando 1990's have all the way back to the and 50's, most the 1950's, most
americans saw their homes as a pragmatic investment to make. real estate went up over time. took out a mortgage and paid it off over that time, the value of the home would go up and they would have a nest egg. they saw their homes as a nest egg. we have seen in the last 15 years is something very different. what we have seen is homes and treated as financial assets. the value of financial assets can go up a lot and go down a lot and go back up a lot. that is what we're seeing in the last few years. we had a housing boom when housing prices took off. it ended around 2005. there was a large drop in home prices. larger than anyone expected. -- the fed had
this nest egg you. -- this nest egg view. home prices tended to rise in gradual steps. have and the fed did not the idea that home prices could fall 30%. says this one home went from $225,000 to $400,000. that's a large uptick. we are seeing this and a number of other markets. las vegas bombed out and has come roaring back. this begs the question, why is this happening? what are the consequences? one possibility might be the fed. embraced very low interest rate policies over the last 10-15 years. it might be the case that these
low interest rates are incentivizing investors and households to use homes like financial assets and not as nest eggs. this is something that the fed debates. they have been debating this. bernanke didn't think the fed was the main cause of the housing bubble. debate.ive we hear comments and questions from callers like that and it makes we wonder if there is something broader going on. host: jon hilsenrath joining us to talk about the federal reserve and related issues. he is the chief economics correspondent for the wall street journal. he helped in the compiling of "yellen and the fed." taking a look at jenin yellen at the federal reserve. gary in virginia. republican line. caller: good interview, pedro. i would like to talk about
increasing the velocity of the money and the aim of the money in fostering growth and focusing on jobs. jobs if wet more used satellites and computers to analyze come prioritize and design our transportation infrastructure. we can get more jobs than the keystone pipeline could ever give us and we could get a much better product. take a look at -- take a lookg at the silver spring line. the governor has a project that he put $250 million on and not an inch of pavement is being laid. guest: there is a few points in their. the caller talk about technology and where investment in
technology can get the economy growing faster and create more jobs. there is a couple of points about that. one of the points is there is a debate going on among economists right now -- a divisive debate about whether the economy has reached all the benefits that are capable from this technological boom that we have experienced in the last years. -- in the last 20 years. -- anis link on a missed economist named robert gordon who says that we have squeezed all we are going to get out of this and that technology is not going to get the economy growing at a faster. the productivity benefits that we had from technology are diminishing and we are destined growth thanf slower we are used to.
a number of economies don't agree with that. -- a number of economists don't agree with that. some say we are headed for a second wave of technological advancement which is going to benefit the economy and create more productivity and create more jobs. we will have to see how that plays out. it is a big question at the fed because when they try to decide how fast -- how much inflation is building up in the pipeline, one of the fundamental questions they have to answer is, how fast is this economy keep all of growing echo there is a lot of productivity built into the system. he can get more output because technology is at the fingertips. they can allow the economy to grow a little bit faster. we are at this moment where you don't know the answer to that. i have to be skeptical of the argument that we have run the
course of technological advancement. is an a cousin who infectious disease doctor who is living in africa right now who is taking photos of patients that he finds in destitute makes instant es.gnosis i can see how this won't advance the economy in the years ahead. host: the federal reserve is always controlled the interest rate and is being kept below inflation. guest: good question. reserve always controlled the interest rate? is it intentionally keeping it
low to hold the government's borrowing costs down? there is a rich history to the fed here. it dates all the way back to the founders. hamilton and thomas jefferson had battles about whether to create a central bank. they came up with a compromise. jefferson was a farmer in virginia who didn't trust banks and didn't trust the big banks and new york who tended to charge exorbitant interest rates on farm interests in rural areas. xander hamilton was a banker who lived in new york. he wanted to have a central bank to help the government finance the borrowings that it took on during the revolutionary war. -- alexander hamilton was a banker. they came up with a cover my eyes that created the first banks in the united states.
-- they came up with a compromise. one of the compromises was having the capital right here in washington. hamilton wanted it in new york. capitaleed but the right outside of virginia in return for creating a bank in the united states. these fights over the central bank have been going back and forth for years. andrew jackson illuminated the second bank in the united states. there was a financial crisis in washingtonalarmed and wall street and led to the creation of the fed in 1913. original goal was to be a lender to banks in a financial crisis to prevent panic. its role has evolved over the years and has taken an
increasingly important role in setting short-term interest rates. italy sets the short rates. the vast majority of interest rates in the economy are set by the private sector. -- carcard loan rates loan rates. the borrowing rate on its own that is set in the private sector but the fed influences these things. that is the history. the fed has set the short-term interest rate below inflation and has done it -- kept it there for several years now since the financial crisis. they put it to zero in december of 2008. the fed's argument is that they want to bring down all bar when rates to get the entire economy growing faster. the rate they have the most impact on his government borrowing rates. results is that it has held down the cost of borrowing for the federal government.
an fed says that is aftereffect of its broader policy. the skeptics might say that it is a direct affect. host: calvin from los angeles. democrats like. caller: hey. , jont want to say hilsenrath, you look kind of nervous. i want to get your thoughts -- do you think obama is a rip -- host: sally. republican line. caller: i don't take any issue with you on your attitude. i think you have done a good job. there is one problem. saidsed a comment that investors were selling because that is not true.
that was the hedge fund index traders. on cnbc, they have gotten the everybodybelieve rushes and the market goes down 300 points. they are not buying stocks. they are buying baskets of stocks and playing with the markets all the time. the point of it is, i wonder if you have read the article on bloomberg the day before yesterday about the attorney general of new york for someer hedge funds of the mischief they are doing. they are micro trading -- doing the quick trading on these new high-speed computers. on the new york ag, i
haven't been covering it or working on that story. i won't say anything of any value or information to your viewers. viewer's, it's about hedge funds -- what she is referring to his program traders. there is no question that importantading is an factor right now in short-term movement in the market. if you look at what happened yesterday, the fed put out a policy statement at 2:00. almost instantaneously, the market dropped when that statement came out. -- thee program traders investment banks have some of their own as well -- these are programmed to trade
off of headlines with specific data or comments in them. saw happened was programs that the fed's expectations were in twot rates would be years -- they were higher than had been expected. started sounding off on it. these program traders are very important players in day to day activity. it is not mom-and-pop sitting around watching cnbc or fox business or bloomberg news yellen said janet something competent it, i'm going to sell now -- something complicated, i'm going to sell now."